ROAD BOARDS AND COUNTY COUNCIL.

Colonist, Volume LII, Issue 12710, 1 December 1909, Page 4

ROAD BOARDS AND COUNTY COUNCIL.

(To the Editor of "The Colonist.") Sir, —ln reply to Mr Everett's letter in your issue of the Qitli, I have to state that it was not the chargeof tho 5 per cent that I took exception to, but to the- breach of agreement. As I, in conjunction with the late Mr J. Win, as delegates of tQie Dovedale Road Board, assisted.in the making of that agreement, I .should know quite as much, if not more, about it thaii Cr Everett, who,:?-at that time, was not a Council member. That, the agreement was open to amendment has been pointed out to -readors of your paper previously in a letter signed "Road Board." When tiro parties have an agreement, is it businesslike for one-of the_parties to ignore the other, and without consultation decide on a new course of action as Cr Everett' admits the Council has done? He has also taken great pains to explain that the s-ignr ing or not signing of this certificate, makes no difference to-the Council's finances. Then why do they,want it signed? I pass Mr Everett's personal grievances as unworthy of comment, such having no connection witli tho collecting of rates. Re manage^ ment of local affairs —the Dovedaile Road Board has so far managed to keep a credit balance. Can the Council say the same ? I would recommend Cr Everett to study the balance sheet in your issue of the 19th inst., and to consider the remarks of the Autlitor thereon. Now, to quote from Cr Everett's letter, "In the last six yea^rs the Dovedale revenue from rates and subsidy has risen 50 per cent, and that exclusive of the £6000 required for bridges." I venture to say these bridges are not in the Dovedale district, and also that the raites have risen more than 50 por cent, hut there is not a corresponding improvement in the roads. If the Council has spent the £245 of the ratepayers' money in the Dovedale district duiiiijj; the last year, the roads do not show value for the money. Now Cr Everett after aJI his preamble and "figures easy of comprehension," has not clearly proved that the Council ihas - any right to collect the one farthing rate of the Road Board or to recoup its own finances out of rates and subsidy which legally belong to the Dovedale Road Board, and he has waited raither long to claim priority to fine suggestion of the alteration of riding boundaries. —l am, etc., HUGH KENYON. fTo the Editor of "Tho Colonist.") Sir, —ln your issue of the 24th inst., I notice a lengthy letter from .Mr Everett in which he indulges very freely in. abusing the Dovedalp Road Board. As a member of that body I entirely fail to see any just reason for such abuse. The Dovedale Road Board has never instructed its secretary to correspond with the Council ill an insulting manner, as complained of by Mr Everett, neither was the Board aware that such a thing had been done. Mr Everett also complains that some individual! .members of the Board by word ot mouth in open meeting (whatever that may mean) have expressed theni- - selves contemptuously condemnatory of the Council, while vaunting their own superiority. Well, Sir, the Board is not responsible for the opinions expressed by individual members in open conversation ; neither are they responsible for the opinions expressed even by their chairman in a newspaper correspondence. Therefore, I don't think Mr Everett has any right to pour out his wrath on the Board because an individual member 'tells him something that ho did not want to hear. Now, Sir, I will try to be as brief as possible in tloaling with the business part of this matter. slr Everett admits there was an agreement or arrangement made between tlie Council and the Road Boards in 1891 that the Boards should not levy a rate, but let the Council lev.y. the rate, and return to the Boards an amount equal to a one farthing raite with the full subsidy on same ; th.it has been in existence for 17 or 18 years, and lias worked fairly well. But this year the Council have decided to charge the Boards five por cent for eollot'tina their portion of tho rate. Now, as- Mr Everett says, the bargain was not binding on either party for all time (but this is whore the trouble came in) the Cotincil have departed from the agreement withoutconsulting the Boards, simply saying they were going to keep back five per cent for collecting. Now, Sir, if the Council can show the Boards that it costs them five per cent more to collect on account of their farthing rate, then I think the Boards will be satisfied, but I think the general opinion is that it costs the Council but very little more to collect the whole of the rates than it would to collect their portion only. It seems to me to be a paltry affair. The few pounds they will get by keeping back the five per cent will only be like a drop in a bucket. Mr Everett points out that within the last six years the Dovedale revenue from rates and subsidy has risen 50 per cent: that of itself is no justification for the Council to charge for collecting. If the revenue has risen, so lias the expenditure. Now, I would ILke to point. ol't to Mr Everett that the Board have not absolutely declined to sign the certificate, but simply postponed it for further information, although tlie correspondence from the Board "to the Council may have given the impression that such was the case, I am afraid, Sir, Mr Everett is troubled with some serious complaint " from which, however, I hope he will speedily recover. —l am, etc., A. JORDAN. Dovedale, Nov. 30th.